hillary ending the war

[BytheRules]

She said she wouldn't have started it had she been president. But she voted to authorize it & hasn't had much to say adversly against it until now. HYPOCRITE! Or maybe she's just afraid of John Edwards. :rolleyes:

Hillary on Iraq: 'I Would Not Have Started This War' (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/2/2/131121.shtml?s=ic)

[USMC the Almighty]

She voted for it before she voted against it.

This proves that she has no convictions and is without a backbone - merely doing everything for her own political agenda.

[saggyjones]

She voted for it before she voted against it.

This proves that she has no convictions and is without a backbone - merely doing everything for her own political agenda.

All politicians flip-flop, do you want to see some of Bush's?

* Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
* Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
* Bush is against a WMD investigation; then he's for it.
* Bush is against nation building; then he's for it. (Even before 9/11 it was part of his foreign policy, PNAC. So drop the "everything changed after 9/11" malarky.)
* Bush said he'll provide money for first responders (emergency services); then he doesn't.
* Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.
* Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
* Bush said he'll reduce Greenhouse gases; then doesn't do it.
* Bush is for a patient's bill of rights then; then he fights against it.
* Bush say that "help is on the way" to the military; then he cuts benefits.
* Bush talks about helping education; then he cuts funding.
* Bush says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea; then he says we will.
* Bush campaigns at racist Bob Jones University; then says he shouldn't have.
* Bush says he will demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq; then he announces he won't call for a vote.
* Bush says the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the Navy; then he admits it was his advance team.
* Bush is for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US; then he's against it.
* Bush is for a state's right to decide on gay marriage; then he's for amending the constitution to prevent it.

These aren't mine btw, I got them from http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/07/16_flip.html


This is to the bold part: How naive can you get! All politicians do stuff for their own political agenda, it's the only way they can get/stay in power and achieve things they believe to be important.

[InterestedParty]

I'd appreciate it if you could supply the original sources for your claims on Bush saggy. Not the link you supplied either. Original sources.

No offense, but I'd like to see the proof for myself.

[USMC the Almighty]

All politicians flip-flop, do you want to see some of Bush's?

* Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
* Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
* Bush is against a WMD investigation; then he's for it.
* Bush is against nation building; then he's for it. (Even before 9/11 it was part of his foreign policy, PNAC. So drop the "everything changed after 9/11" malarky.)
* Bush said he'll provide money for first responders (emergency services); then he doesn't.
* Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.
* Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
* Bush said he'll reduce Greenhouse gases; then doesn't do it.
* Bush is for a patient's bill of rights then; then he fights against it.
* Bush say that "help is on the way" to the military; then he cuts benefits.
* Bush talks about helping education; then he cuts funding.
* Bush says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea; then he says we will.
* Bush campaigns at racist Bob Jones University; then says he shouldn't have.
* Bush says he will demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq; then he announces he won't call for a vote.
* Bush says the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the Navy; then he admits it was his advance team.
* Bush is for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US; then he's against it.
* Bush is for a state's right to decide on gay marriage; then he's for amending the constitution to prevent it.

These aren't mine btw, I got them from http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/07/16_flip.html


This is to the bold part: How naive can you get! All politicians do stuff for their own political agenda, it's the only way they can get/stay in power and achieve things they believe to be important.

Oh give me a break. None of these issues are even close to the level of magnitude of the Iraq War. Changing one's position isn't an inherently bad thing. When new facts come out, new information revealed, and altered circumstances -- revising your view and opinion isn't a bad thing.

It's when you obscure your opinion, like Hilary has done, for the benefit of your personal agenda (White House), that I have a problem.

[saggyjones]

Oh give me a break. None of these issues are even close to the level of magnitude of the Iraq War. Changing one's position isn't an inherently bad thing. When new facts come out, new information revealed, and altered circumstances -- revising your view and opinion isn't a bad thing.

Hilary changed her mind based on altered circumstances.

It's when you obscure your opinion, like Hilary has done, for the benefit of your personal agenda (White House), that I have a problem.

You are very naive, because every politician has to do just this so they can gain power.

[USMC the Almighty]

You are very naive, because every politician has to do just this so they can gain power.

Not John McCain. Not Joe Lieberman. Not even President Bush. I could go on. These are all men who make their opinions loud and clear. Hilary is intentionally making her opinion fuzzy so she can attract both the pro/anti-victory segments of her party.

[saggyjones]

I'd appreciate it if you could supply the original sources for your claims on Bush saggy. Not the link you supplied either. Original sources.

No offense, but I'd like to see the proof for myself.

Here's a much better site than the one I listed:

http://www.50bushflipflops.com/Introduction/home.html

It has all the sources there.

[saggyjones]

Not John McCain. Not Joe Lieberman. Not even President Bush. I could go on. These are all men who make their opinions loud and clear. Hilary is intentionally making her opinion fuzzy so she can attract both the pro/anti-victory segments of her party.

It's fine if you want to keep being naive about this, most people are. But all politicians change their opinions around so they can gain power to do what they think is necessary.

[USMC the Almighty]

Here's a Voltaire quote that I like -- "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." - Voltaire

[saggyjones]

Here's a Voltaire quote that I like -- "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." - Voltaire

I like that quote too. But what does it have to do with the topic?

[USMC the Almighty]

I like that quote too. But what does it have to do with the topic?

Absolutely nothing. I just noticed your Voltaire quote and posted this one.

[saggyjones]

Absolutely nothing. I just noticed your Voltaire quote and posted this one.

I see. Voltaire was a pretty cool dude and I like his quotes. He had a lot of balls too lol

[InterestedParty]

Actually Saggy... I find the quote that you use to be quite revealing. I believe that USMC saw it also but has enough integrity to not call you out on it. I will.

It *hints* that maybe our men and women in uniform aren't serving the most noble of causes in your opinion. That deeply offends me.

I have no doubt that you are young. I have no doubt that you have failed to comprehend what it means to live in a country where our motives and actions are held to the highest level of scrutiny from all corners of the world. As well they should be. We have nothing to hide. What motivates us is not world domination. We don't want to control other people. We want for them what we have here. The chance of living a life free of tyranny. You don't begin to understand what our service personnel are facing worldwide. They are attempting to accomplish various missions to improve and protect the lives of people who will never know their names. Who won't remember their faces. These men and women in uniform understand that it is completely possible that they may lose their own lives for the benefits of complete strangers. How more noble could any cause be? Are you willing to do the same thing? I have no doubt what the answer to that question would be either.

You are nice and comfy and *safe* sitting behind that computer monitor and enabling the enemy. While people like USMC have been-- and are willingly-- and honorably doing the dirty work of guaranteeing that you will be able to do that again tomorrow. They don't want any gratitude from you. All they want is for you and those like you to not undermine their efforts and make their jobs more hazardous. Which is exactly what you are doing.

This isn't a Democrat versus Republican, Conservative versus Liberal issue. This isn't about your idealogy. No offense, but $crew your idealistic beliefs. These are real men and women putting their lives on the line for you and that little signatuire line you are using is deplorable. I don't give a damn what you believe to be the truth. The fact is you are advertising for the enemy. You are advertising that their claims are true which couldn't be further from the truth. Justify THAT to the millions of veterans scattered around this country.

[saggyjones]

It *hints* that maybe our men and women in uniform aren't serving the most noble of causes in your opinion. That deeply offends me.

Do you honestly think I care what offends you? I'll listen to your opinion and take it into consideration but I don't give a flying fu*k if you're offended by anything I say.

I have no doubt that you are young. I have no doubt that you have failed to comprehend what it means to live in a country where our motives and actions are held to the highest level of scrutiny from all corners of the world. As well they should be. We have nothing to hide. What motivates us is not world domination. We don't want to control other people. We want for them what we have here. The chance of living a life free of tyranny.

I'm fine with that and I was fine with taking out Saddam. Why are we still in Iraq? We need to let them have a civl war

You don't begin to understand what our service personnel are facing worldwide. They are attempting to accomplish various missions to improve and protect the lives of people who will never know their names. Who won't remember their faces. These men and women in uniform understand that it is completely possible that they may lose their own lives for the benefits of complete strangers. How more noble could any cause be? Are you willing to do the same thing? I have no doubt what the answer to that question would be either.

Actually I do begin to understand what they face from reading books and articles and watching the news. I have a general idea that it's hell for the troops.

A nobler cause would be one that actually helps people. I wholeheartedly support going into Darfur and any other place where there is genocide or very poor living conditions. But that's not what my argument or the thread is about. It's about leaving Iraq right now because we're accomplishing nothing there. By the way, here's a civilian body count so far:

Minimum civilians killed: 55664 Max. civilians killed: 61369
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

You are nice and comfy and *safe* sitting behind that computer monitor and enabling the enemy.

How am I enabling the enemy?

While people like USMC have been-- and are willingly-- and honorably doing the dirty work of guaranteeing that you will be able to do that again tomorrow. They don't want any gratitude from you. All they want is for you and those like you to not undermine their efforts and make their jobs more hazardous. Which is exactly what you are doing.

How?

This isn't a Democrat versus Republican, Conservative versus Liberal issue. This isn't about your idealogy. No offense, but $crew your idealistic beliefs. These are real men and women putting their lives on the line for you and that little signatuire line you are using is deplorable. I don't give a damn what you believe to be the truth. The fact is you are advertising for the enemy. You are advertising that their claims are true which couldn't be further from the truth. Justify THAT to the millions of veterans scattered around this country.

How am I advertising to the enemy?

Once again I don't care if I offend you or anyone else. And by the way, have you served in the military? I'm just wondering.

[USMC the Almighty]

A nobler cause would be one that actually helps people. I wholeheartedly support going into Darfur and any other place where there is genocide or very poor living conditions. But that's not what my argument or the thread is about. It's about leaving Iraq right now because we're accomplishing nothing there.

We are helping people in Iraq. We freed people from an oppressive government.

I find it interesting that you "wholeheartedly support going into Darfur" and other places of genocide where we have no interests, but are against the Iraq War where we both (1) have interests and (2) are helping free people (including preventing genocide).

By the way, here's a civilian body count so far:

Minimum civilians killed: 55664 Max. civilians killed: 61369
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

First, it is impossible to get an accurate body count because there are no definitive lines between civilians and soldiers. If I'm walking down the street and someone starts shooting at me from a window, and I throw a grenade into the building and kill him, is that a civilian?

Second, who does this website claim is responsible for the deaths of these "civilians"?

How am I enabling the enemy?

There are a number of reasons.

(1) Believe or not, terrorist and terrorist sympathizers read American newspapers, blogs, message boards, etc. and use stuff like this as propaganda for both recruiting new sucicide terrorists and for inspiring the current terrorists to continue fighting.

(2) As I noted somewhere else here, the terrorists aren't trying to defeat us militarily -- they know they can't and that's why they utilize guerilla tactics. However, they can force us to pull out by prolonging the war and forcing the boisterous American public and biased media to pressure the politicians into surrendering and retreating. Coinciding with the growing anti-war sentiment is growing inspiration for the terrorists as they are seeing that American doesn't have the stomach or will, to fight wars on foreign soil.

(3) They also use American retreats as propaganda for recruiting new terrorists. See Clinton and the mishandling of Somalia in 1993, where Osama bin Laden told a reporter that his terrorist fighters were:

"They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. ... As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army..."


Once again I don't care if I offend you or anyone else. And by the way, have you served in the military? I'm just wondering.

You have your First Amendment right to speech. We also have the First Amendment right to tell you that you're wrong and giving comfort to the enemy.

And how is her military status relevant?

[saggyjones]

We are helping people in Iraq. We freed people from an oppressive government.

There is no oppressive government there anymore.

I find it interesting that you "wholeheartedly support going into Darfur" and other places of genocide where we have no interests, but are against the Iraq War where we both (1) have interests and (2) are helping free people (including preventing genocide).

1. I don't believe our interests in Iraq are good because I don't think we should trade blood for oil. Also I don't think we need to force our style of government on anyone. We need to concentrate on terrorist groups elsewhere as I've said, so I disagree that we should be there for our own interests.

2. We aren't helping to free people now because there's no government oppressing and killing them anymore. Each insurgent group wants to get the people on their side so they can gain control of the country. Once there's a civil war and things become fairly stable again we can help rebuild the country using economic and political power, as I said before.

First, it is impossible to get an accurate body count because there are no definitive lines between civilians and soldiers. If I'm walking down the street and someone starts shooting at me from a window, and I throw a grenade into the building and kill him, is that a civilian?

No, that's a soldier. But you're right it's hard to count the number of civilians and it's basically a guess. However we know there have been thousands of civilian lives lost and I was simply stating another cost of the war.

Second, who does this website claim is responsible for the deaths of these "civilians"?

It's civilians caught in battle, or killed by US troops when clearing buildings, etc, but most were killed by our bombing. I'm not blaming troops for their deaths because war is always ugly and they're just doing what they're ordered to.

There are a number of reasons.

(1) Believe or not, terrorist and terrorist sympathizers read American newspapers, blogs, message boards, etc. and use stuff like this as propaganda for both recruiting new sucicide terrorists and for inspiring the current terrorists to continue fighting.

But how does disagreeing with the war help with recruiting terrorists?

(2) As I noted somewhere else here, the terrorists aren't trying to defeat us militarily -- they know they can't and that's why they utilize guerilla tactics. However, they can force us to pull out by prolonging the war and forcing the boisterous American public and biased media to pressure the politicians into surrendering and retreating. Coinciding with the growing anti-war sentiment is growing inspiration for the terrorists as they are seeing that American doesn't have the stomach or will, to fight wars on foreign soil.

First of all the Iraqi insurgents aren't terrorists. They are factions in Iraq that only want control of their country and don't want to attack America.

But if you mean terrorists like Al-Qaeda, then my or probably any other American's opinions aren't influenced by them. How can they force Americans to do anything?

Also can you give me some examples of the media being biased please?

(3) They also use American retreats as propaganda for recruiting new terrorists. See Clinton and the mishandling of Somalia in 1993, where Osama bin Laden told a reporter that his terrorist fighters were:

"They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. ... As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army..."

What do American retreats have to do with me? You said that troops don't care what I think and don't want gratitude, so how do I lower their morale? I respect everyone in the military but I don't believe in how they are being used and their mission.

You have your First Amendment right to speech. We also have the First Amendment right to tell you that you're wrong and giving comfort to the enemy.

What's your point?

And how is her military status relevant?

It's not, I'm just curious.

[USMC the Almighty]

There is no oppressive government there anymore.

Hence my use of the past tense.

1. I don't believe our interests in Iraq are good because I don't think we should trade blood for oil. Also I don't think we need to force our style of government on anyone. We need to concentrate on terrorist groups elsewhere as I've said, so I disagree that we should be there for our own interests.

Oh God, not the blood for oil cries. We're not forcing our gov't on anyone. The Iraqi people overwhelmingly accept it (look at stats from previous elections) -- you're allowing a radical fringe to form shape your opinion into one that believes no Iraqis like our American style democracy/capitalism.

I agree. We need to concentrate on terrorist groups everywhere, including Iraq. We can't be considered safe until these terrorist organizations are suppressed to the level of modern day Nazis.

2. We aren't helping to free people now because there's no government oppressing and killing them anymore. Each insurgent group wants to get the people on their side so they can gain control of the country.

There are still terrorist organizations like Hezbollah trying to bring them under tyranny. We must repel this.

Once there's a civil war and things become fairly stable again we can help rebuild the country using economic and political power, as I said before.

Their civil war would likely be a timeless one -- just look at all the wars in Africa. Each new generation is just avenging the previous one in an endless cycle of civil wars. We can't allow Iraq to become destabilized to this point as it forms the perfect template for a towel-headed version of Hitler to come in and seize control of the country.


No, that's a soldier. But you're right it's hard to count the number of civilians and it's basically a guess. However we know there have been thousands of civilian lives lost and I was simply stating another cost of the war.

You're damn right.

It's civilians caught in battle, or killed by US troops when clearing buildings, etc, but most were killed by our bombing. I'm not blaming troops for their deaths because war is always ugly and they're just doing what they're ordered to.

How do these pencil-pushing bean counters living plush in their hotels from the GZ have any idea who the hell is actually killing the Iraqi "civilians".

But how does disagreeing with the war help with recruiting terrorists?

I told you in the last post. Basically, your statements and protests are used as propaganda and they pressure a withdrawl which further helps recruit terrorists.

First of all the Iraqi insurgents aren't terrorists.

A lot of them are. You're crazy if you think there are no terrorists inside Iraq.


Also can you give me some examples of the media being biased please?

MSNBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, LA TIMES, NY TIMES, WASHINGTON POST...

The first two are the big ones, the others are more about the media in general though I believe the NY Times one is more telling:

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf

http://www.cmpa.com/documents/06.10.31.Bad.news.pdf

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/10/the_magnifying_trick_of_libera.html

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17478

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/07/the_medias_selective_coverage.html

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.24618,filter.all/pub_detail.asp

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2006/07/12/nyregion/20060712_ASK_SLIDESHOW_21.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/07/convict_correct_but_never_apol.html

What do American retreats have to do with me? You said that troops don't care what I think and don't want gratitude, so how do I lower their morale?

Because you put pressure on the politicians to retreat. The U.S. military won't retreat. The U.S. gov't will. That's what retreats have to do with you.

You lower our morale by telling us that the mission we are laying our lives on the line for every day isn't worth it. We don't want gratitude, we just want you to not make our jobs more dangerous or painful than they already are.

[OldSchool Politician]

Everyone seem to be overjoyed about Saddam being taken out, and we are in Iraq getting waxed everyday for some political bull****ting reason. All ofAmerica's eyes is on other coutries outside of the United Snakes, and is to blind to see what is happening here in our own country.

If Hillary can end the war in Iraq if she's elected..sobeit. Some of these replies to quotes is long and boring. Why write a 30 page post about a quote someone posted, and them same 30 pages can be said in a few simple words.

Look at the Economics and Unemployment issues that's so bad until American corperations is moving to other countries. Jobs is being cut daily by the thousands, and many cuts is happening in many of our Nations city depts.

In closing .. bare this in mind No President can end nothing without support from the House & Senate. However I believe that if a woman was to win a place in the White House things will change for the best. Go HILLARY GO

[InterestedParty]

So OldSchool....

Do you have a problem with Saddam being "taken out"?

[saggyjones]

Oh God, not the blood for oil cries.

What's wrong with them? We shouldn't use the military to control oil because we aren't there for oil. It's an international market and the government wouldn't ruin their economy by not selling to their biggest user, the US. So staying there isn't keeping oil under control.

We're not forcing our gov't on anyone. The Iraqi people overwhelmingly accept it (look at stats from previous elections) -- you're allowing a radical fringe to form shape your opinion into one that believes no Iraqis like our American style democracy/capitalism.

There is a better system of government than before so I take back that part. I still don't think we should force our government on people but since it was so quickly adapted it was more of a blessing I'm sure.

There are still terrorist organizations like Hezbollah trying to bring them under tyranny. We must repel this.

Hezbollah is in Lebanon, not Iraq.

Their civil war would likely be a timeless one -- just look at all the wars in Africa. Each new generation is just avenging the previous one in an endless cycle of civil wars. We can't allow Iraq to become destabilized to this point as it forms the perfect template for a towel-headed version of Hitler to come in and seize control of the country.

The civil war wouldn't be timeless because we would give weapons and support to one side without sending our soldiers in. We could also get the Iraqi government to support one side. It would end quickly without us there to get in the way and after it is over we would use our economic influence to further capitalism there.


How do these pencil-pushing bean counters living plush in their hotels from the GZ have any idea who the hell is actually killing the Iraqi "civilians".

I imagine by reports from soldiers, but I guess they don't.

I told you in the last post. Basically, your statements and protests are used as propaganda and they pressure a withdrawl which further helps recruit terrorists.

Terrorists believe that we are the "white devil" and that Christians are heathens. There's no recruiting process like there is here, and they don't need propaganda to get terrorists.

A lot of them are. You're crazy if you think there are no terrorists inside Iraq.

Well of course there are but the main Shiite and Sunni groups aren't terrorists who want to fly planes into American buildings. And even if they were they don't have the capability.

MSNBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, LA TIMES, NY TIMES, WASHINGTON POST...

The first two are the big ones, the others are more about the media in general though I believe the NY Times one is more telling:

OK the media is biased. But they aren't so biased that they are skewing data, it's only the way in which they present it.

Because you put pressure on the politicians to retreat. The U.S. military won't retreat. The U.S. gov't will. That's what retreats have to do with you.

Well retreat is a necessary part of battle and has been since the beginning of war so if that's true then the military needs to adjust their tactics.

You lower our morale by telling us that the mission we are laying our lives on the line for every day isn't worth it. We don't want gratitude, we just want you to not make our jobs more dangerous or painful than they already are.

I want soldiers taken out of harms way and that shows I care about them, so that should raise morale. Also, are you saying that I shouldn't have my opinion just so some soldiers' morale is better? Because if the military really believes it's protecting our freedom their morale should go up when they hear people speaking their minds.

[InterestedParty]

Saggy...

I'll start with your last question to me. Have I ever served in the military? No. Never have. I'm too old now and they wouldn't want me, but if I could, I would. I would gladly defend my country with my life. Since we are on the subject, how about you?

You wondered how I believed you were enabling the enemy. USMC pretty much covered it but the reason I say that here and now is because of your signature line. In a round about way you are stating that our men and women in uniform are guilty of murder. Claims that the insurgents and terrorists make every day. You are aligning yourself with them and strengthening that claim when it is coming from someone inside of the United States.

How are you advertising? The signature line. Every post you make is an advertisement against our military. Every post.

As for not caring if you offend me or anyone else. Believe it or not, I don't care either if you offend me. What I do care about is the effect that you are having on the husbands, sons, fathers, wives, daughters and mothers that are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan so that you can make your asinine comments and observations. Quite frankly, you don't deserve their service.

[saggyjones]

Saggy...

I'll start with your last question to me. Have I ever served in the military? No. Never have. I'm too old now and they wouldn't want me, but if I could, I would. I would gladly defend my country with my life. Since we are on the subject, how about you?

No I haven't, and I wouldn't volunteer. If someone invaded our country with no premise (or one that I believe is worth fighting against) I would sign up but I'm not volunteering to fight in the middle east.

You wondered how I believed you were enabling the enemy. USMC pretty much covered it but the reason I say that here and now is because of your signature line. In a round about way you are stating that our men and women in uniform are guilty of murder. Claims that the insurgents and terrorists make every day. You are aligning yourself with them and strengthening that claim when it is coming from someone inside of the United States.

It's just a fu*king sig, get over it. I just find it funny and ironic that killing is so heroic in a war and is the highest degree of punishment in our society. I'm not saying anything against the troops.

How are you advertising? The signature line. Every post you make is an advertisement against our military. Every post.

You need to stop taking my sig so seriously.

As for not caring if you offend me or anyone else. Believe it or not, I don't care either if you offend me.

That makes no sense. If I offend you then you obviously care about it, but then you don't care.

What I do care about is the effect that you are having on the husbands, sons, fathers, wives, daughters and mothers that are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan so that you can make your asinine comments and observations. Quite frankly, you don't deserve their service.

Why are you telling me this? Do you understand that I don't care about what you think, or how you interpret my sig?

[OldSchool Politician]

So OldSchool....
Do you have a problem with Saddam being "taken out"?

No...I have no problem with Saddam being gone, but its the way he was taken out which was wrong, and still the way he was removed was a cowardly act on the President's part. However the same way Saddam was removed from power..Bush should be removed and tried for war crimes.

Saddam is dead, and why are we still stuck in Iraq? What are we waiting to do next? Invade Iran? Why Not invade Cuba?

InterestedP, Today must be your lucky day, due to the fact that I do not answer people who question my opinion, and the answer I gave you above shows ME that I can be friendly whenever I want to be nice. That was your once in a lifetime chance to get a calmly reply from me.

[USMC the Almighty]

What's wrong with them? We shouldn't use the military to control oil because we aren't there for oil. It's an international market and the government wouldn't ruin their economy by not selling to their biggest user, the US. So staying there isn't keeping oil under control.

They are absolutely fallaciou -- that's what's wrong with them. It's in the same boat as the 9/11 conspiracies. The military is there to create a functioning Iraqi democracy with a robust economy and defense force. Oil is an essential part of the Iraqi economy so the troops protecting Umm Qsar and other smaller oil wells is key to our mission. But you are misguided in the thinking that oil plays a central role to American involvement.

There is a better system of government than before so I take back that part. I still don't think we should force our government on people but since it was so quickly adapted it was more of a blessing I'm sure.

Finally, we agree.

Hezbollah is in Lebanon, not Iraq.

Wow -- this really shows how little you know about Hezbollah and Iraq. Hezbollah actually has a party in the Iraqi government. Now that I have informed you, I would like you to go back to my original mentioning of Hezbollah and attempt to refute my assertion.

The civil war wouldn't be timeless because we would give weapons and support to one side without sending our soldiers in. We could also get the Iraqi government to support one side. It would end quickly without us there to get in the way and after it is over we would use our economic influence to further capitalism there.

Talk about being naive.


Terrorists believe that we are the "white devil" and that Christians are heathens. There's no recruiting process like there is here, and they don't need propaganda to get terrorists.

Of course they need/use propaganda. If they are able to spin American attacks against terrorism as attacks against their families and country it makes convincing families to send their children off strapped with bombs a great deal easier. If they are able to convince the fundamentalist youth that Americans are on the verge of surrender/retreat as evidenced by growing discontent on the homefront, then it makes recruiting a lot easier. But don't take my word -- take Osama's.

Well retreat is a necessary part of battle and has been since the beginning of war so if that's true then the military needs to adjust their tactics.

"Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more." -- General George S. Patton, U.S. 3rd Army.

"In landing operations, retreat is impossible, to surrender is as ignoble as it is foolish… above all else remember that we as attackers have the initiative, we know exactly what we are going to do, while the enemy is ignorant of our intentions and can only parry our blows. We must retain this tremendous advantage by always attacking rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, and without rest." -- General George S. Patton, U.S. 3rd Army.

I want soldiers taken out of harms way and that shows I care about them, so that should raise morale. Also, are you saying that I shouldn't have my opinion just so some soldiers' morale is better? Because if the military really believes it's protecting our freedom their morale should go up when they hear people speaking their minds.

Not at all. Do as you wish -- I'm just a Marine with experience on the ground giving you his thoughts on troop morale and anti-war sentiment.

[saggyjones]

They are absolutely fallaciou -- that's what's wrong with them. It's in the same boat as the 9/11 conspiracies. The military is there to create a functioning Iraqi democracy with a robust economy and defense force. Oil is an essential part of the Iraqi economy so the troops protecting Umm Qsar and other smaller oil wells is key to our mission. But you are misguided in the thinking that oil plays a central role to American involvement.

I don't think oil plays any role in American involvement, apparently you misunderstood me. You said that we have interests there worth more than the costs and I disagree. The administration has used oil as an excuse to be in Iraq and that's completely false, because first of all oil companies aren't controlled by the government and second even if the government has influence over the economy they wouldn't ruin it by not allowing it to be sold.

Wow -- this really shows how little you know about Hezbollah and Iraq. Hezbollah actually has a party in the Iraqi government. Now that I have informed you, I would like you to go back to my original mentioning of Hezbollah and attempt to refute my assertion.

I think there's a misunderstanding.

Hezbollah Movement in Iraq is an Iraqi political party that is part of the United Iraqi Alliance coalition. It is not affiliated with the Lebanese group Hezbollah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_Movement_in_Iraq

The Hezbollah movement in Iraq is not a terrorist group, they are a political party who were anti-Saddam. You should do some research before criticizing me about something you apparently don't know much about.

Talk about being naive.

How so? Please back this statement up.

Of course they need/use propaganda. If they are able to spin American attacks against terrorism as attacks against their families and country it makes convincing families to send their children off strapped with bombs a great deal easier. If they are able to convince the fundamentalist youth that Americans are on the verge of surrender/retreat as evidenced by growing discontent on the homefront, then it makes recruiting a lot easier. But don't take my word -- take Osama's.

OK fine, I could possibly be helping the enemy recruit terrorists by opposing the war. But maybe if that many people are discontented about Iraq we shouldn't be there. I know I wouldn't complain if we left and focused on terrorists, like I've said.

"Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more." -- General George S. Patton, U.S. 3rd Army.

"In landing operations, retreat is impossible, to surrender is as ignoble as it is foolish… above all else remember that we as attackers have the initiative, we know exactly what we are going to do, while the enemy is ignorant of our intentions and can only parry our blows. We must retain this tremendous advantage by always attacking rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, and without rest." -- General George S. Patton, U.S. 3rd Army.

You're simply quoting one general. What if you were outnumbered 500 to 10, would you retreat to fight another day?

But anyway your point earlier was that I'm making it hard to fight by putting pressure on politicians to retreat. Good. I want to get out of Iraq and on to fighting terrorists.

Not at all. Do as you wish -- I'm just a Marine with experience on the ground giving you his thoughts on troop morale and anti-war sentiment.

Thanks, I will. I'll keep speaking against the war until we leave and like I've said numerous times take the fight to Osama and friends.

[InterestedParty]

It's just a fu*king sig, get over it. I just find it funny and ironic that killing is so heroic in a war and is the highest degree of punishment in our society. I'm not saying anything against the troops.



You need to stop taking my sig so seriously.

It isn't the killing that is heroic Saggy. It is the willingness of laying down of your own life to free a nation of people from the torment, torture, rape, murder and oppression of living a life without hope that is heroic. Please don't tell me that you think the people of iraq were better off prior to our invading the country. If you believe they were then you are not only hypocritical for your supposed concern of our military but you care nothing about human life other than your own. Our men and women in Iraq aren't there because they want to kill. They are there doing their duty because they want to defend our countries interests, preserve our way of life and possibly give the people in Iraq the same chance at freedom.

I don't find it funny and yes, I do take it seriously. Taking part in forums like these aren't like sitting across the table from a group of people debating issues. Whatever you put here is for public viewing and people can take your words and twist them to mean anything they want and use them for purposes you may never have intended. This isn't a playground nor a high school lunchroom. Everything we do and say has consequences, if not for us, for someone else.

You continue on your path Saggy. Whether you want to admit it or not you have the blood of our American military on your hands. You do. You share in the guilt of adding to the body count of our American service personnel just as much as the terrorists and insurgents. They may be pulling the triggers and laying the bombs, but you and people like you are giving them the ammunition.

I guess when the day comes that you are actually responsible for and care about someones life other than your own, you will start to realize the effect your actions have had. How the words you use today could be laying the foundation to bring them harm tomorrow. I personnaly hope it haunts you until the day you die.

[InterestedParty]

InterestedP, Today must be your lucky day, due to the fact that I do not answer people who question my opinion, and the answer I gave you above shows ME that I can be friendly whenever I want to be nice. That was your once in a lifetime chance to get a calmly reply from me.

I'm touched. :rolleyes:

[saggyjones]

It isn't the killing that is heroic Saggy. It is the willingness of laying down of your own life to free a nation of people from the torment, torture, rape, murder and oppression of living a life without hope that is heroic. Please don't tell me that you think the people of iraq were better off prior to our invading the country. If you believe they were then you are not only hypocritical for your supposed concern of our military but you care nothing about human life other than your own. Our men and women in Iraq aren't there because they want to kill. They are there doing their duty because they want to defend our countries interests, preserve our way of life and possibly give the people in Iraq the same chance at freedom.

Troops kill to prevent killing, and though I realize that's necessary sometimes, it's ironic to me.

I don't find it funny and yes, I do take it seriously. Taking part in forums like these aren't like sitting across the table from a group of people debating issues. Whatever you put here is for public viewing and people can take your words and twist them to mean anything they want and use them for purposes you may never have intended. This isn't a playground nor a high school lunchroom. Everything we do and say has consequences, if not for us, for someone else.

I really don't care if you take it seriously or what you think about me personally.

You continue on your path Saggy. Whether you want to admit it or not you have the blood of our American military on your hands. You do. You share in the guilt of adding to the body count of our American service personnel just as much as the terrorists and insurgents. They may be pulling the triggers and laying the bombs, but you and people like you are giving them the ammunition.

Whatever you want to believe to get the blame off your own shoulders for sending the troops there in the first place.

I guess when the day comes that you are actually responsible for and care about someones life other than your own, you will start to realize the effect your actions have had. How the words you use today could be laying the foundation to bring them harm tomorrow. I personnaly hope it haunts you until the day you die.

LOL (i honestly laughed out loud when I read this) I don't care what you think about me at all, so what's the point of these posts?

[InterestedParty]

LOL (i honestly laughed out loud when I read this) I don't care what you think about me at all,

Good. It's probably best that you don't care. Because it ain't pretty.

what's the point of these posts?

To expose and confront the type of individual you are. You see, it doesn't matter to me if you care or not.

You have the blood of our American military on your hands. You do. You share in the guilt of adding to the body count of our American service personnel just as much as the terrorists and insurgents. They may be pulling the triggers and laying the bombs, but you and people like you are giving them the ammunition.

[saggyjones]

Good. It's probably best that you don't care. Because it ain't pretty.

Exposing you for what you are.

Let me repeat what I said. Even if you don't care.

You have the blood of our American military on your hands. You do. You share in the guilt of adding to the body count of our American service personnel just as much as the terrorists and insurgents. They may be pulling the triggers and laying the bombs, but you and people like you are giving them the ammunition.

Whatever you want to think is fine with me. But imo you are irrational so I don't take your opinions into consideration, even about real issues.

[InterestedParty]

That's the beauty of it, between you and I, it just doesn't matter.
What matters is that you can say what you want and I can call it the way I see it.

As for you thinking I am irrational, so be it. It doesn't change the facts. You are not worthy of the risks our men and women in the military take on your behalf and based on your stance I would bet that most of them would feel the same way I do. You lose.

[saggyjones]

That's the beauty of it, between you and I, it just doesn't matter. What matters is that you can say what you want and I can call it the way I see it.

As for you thinking I am irrational, so be it. It doesn't change the facts. You are not worthy of the risks our men and women in the military take on your behalf

That's an opinion, not a fact.

and based on your stance I would bet that most of them would feel the same way I do.

Good for you and them.

You lose.

Lose what?

[republicans4obama]

It's not that Hillary has changed her mind, do we even know what she REALLY thinks???? This was her pandering to the Dem base trying to gain some footing. If the pools blow the other way tomorrow she could be for invading Iran. She bends with the polls.

[USMC the Almighty]

It's not that Hillary has changed her mind, do we even know what she REALLY thinks???? This was her pandering to the Dem base trying to gain some footing. If the pools blow the other way tomorrow she could be for invading Iran. She bends with the polls.

Just like her husband. And as we all know that worked out real well.

[Archangelwolf]

I feel like I am watching a kindergarten fight.

Look, to someone who is serving in the military, I give an extra ear to what they have to say. I respect their opinions. But that does not mean that I have to agree with it. Just because someone has a military uniform on does not mean that they are right about everything that they say.

General Eisenhower, during the campaign against Germany in the latter part of World War II, complained bitterly about the differing opinions of other commanders on how he should conduct the war. The French wanted him to do this, the British wanted him to do that; and he even disagreed with FDR on some things, and FDR was his superior. The military are just like everybody else; and they have as many ranging opinions as everybody else.

I will listen to USMC's opinion before I listen to ANYONE's opinion on this subject; because I respect the fact that he is there. That does not mean that I will agree with him; nor does it mean that he is right just because he is in uniform. I respect him; but I will not hang on every word he types.

Arch.

[Archangelwolf]

Ummm......John McCain and Joe Leiberman are just as guilty of flip-flopping according to what is popular. I think we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black on a lot of this.

Personally, I will not vote for Hillary. I have a problem with the whole "dynasty" thing. I am tired of Bush's and Clinton's. I want someone else.

If Rudy Guiliani or Colin Powell run, I will probably vote Republican. The Democrats have not really swayed me with anyone yet. I personally do not think Obama is ready to be President; and not only that, he is not winnable. Perhaps I am being too pessimistic, but I just do not see this country electing a black President with a Muslim name. Sure, there is a lot of hype in his direction; but we still have not heard from the "Silent Majority."

Arch.

[USMC the Almighty]

Just because someone has a military uniform on does not mean that they are right about everything that they say.

Of course not. I wouldn't expect you to conform to whatever I say, but I do ask, and am thankful, that you listen and consider what I do say.

[InterestedParty]

I feel like I am watching a kindergarten fight.

Arch.

And I feel like I have been taking part in a kindergarten fight. My own fault. I guess there are times that we all fall under the spell of trying to make sense and give our version of opinions during conversations that at times make no sense. It's a matter of knowing when to say enough is enough and move on. Which I am doing.

I will listen to USMC's opinion before I listen to ANYONE's opinion on this subject; because I respect the fact that he is there.

On this, I wholeheartedly agree. It isn't that I won't take into consideration varying opinions but when we have a person taking part in the discussion that has first hand knowledge and experience it is in everyones best interest to pay attention to what the individual is saying. It doesn't matter to me whether I agree with the person or not. I want the truth. I want to understand and be ale to make informed decisions on what stance I am going to support.


That does not mean that I will agree with him; nor does it mean that he is right just because he is in uniform. I respect him; but I will not hang on every word he types.

I completely agree.

In a perfect world we would all want to make decisions based on provable facts.

[keepmeposted]

This was my latest post on www.hillaryclinton.com/blog

I feel fortunate to live in a generation that has the opportunity to elect a
woman a President of the United states. We should not allow the Republican party
to label women as week or flip-floppers on important issues like national
defence or terrorism

Also, what is even more encouraging is that an African an American an a women
will be on the Democratic ticket for the 2008 Presidential election (at least
that's my wish). It would what we always known, that the Democratic party is
truly interested in equally, justice and fairplay.

Additionally, Hillary Clinton clearly stands for the rights of the poorest and
most needy in our society. A woman's touch is desperately needed in the
whitehouse, and is vital to bring a level-headed commander-in-chief back to the
United stated.

I am on a one man campaign to spread the good word about Senator Clinton and why
we should elect her as President.

We have a long way to go, but with hard work and dedication, we can bring this ambition to fruition.:rolleyes:

Check out my blogs:

http://keepmepostedblog.blogspot.com/
http://newsentertainment.blogspot.com/